Announcement

Collapse

Skeptiko forums moved

The official forums of the Skeptiko podcast have moved to http://skeptiko.com/forum/.
As such, these forums are now closed for posting.
See more
See less

What's Your Type?: Personality & Paranormal Experience

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Frankmat View Post
    PS: Sensing in the MBTI is not the sensing you would expect. According to the description it is:

    "Sensing types are often good at seeing the practical applications of ideas and things, and may learn best when they can first see the pragmatic side of what is being taught. For sensing types, experience speaks louder than words or theory"
    Thanks for clarifying, I was wondering what "sensing" meant exactly. Got it.

    Comment


    • #77
      This is really interesting

      I voted nt because the last time I took these tests I came up intj ( about 2 years) although borderline on the I the t and the j - the only one I was ever clearly in was 'N', I've just taken the two tests linked here and came up infj in the first and infp in the second. The i/e and j/p are still borderline but the f is now pronounced.

      What's really interesting is that the one thing that has changed in the interim is that I am now pretty firmly on the proponent side of psi and the afterlife whereas the last time I took the tests I would have been on the fence - although if I am honest wanting to believe in the afterlife at least. ( I had not at the time looked into the subject too deeply or come across the evidence I have since -- I was aware of NDEs at the time but was also aware of vehement skeptical arguments -- without being aware at the time of how thin I would later find them.)

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Coroico View Post
        This is really interesting

        I voted nt because the last time I took these tests I came up intj ( about 2 years) although borderline on the I the t and the j - the only one I was ever clearly in was 'N', I've just taken the two tests linked here and came up infj in the first and infp in the second. The i/e and j/p are still borderline but the f is now pronounced.

        What's really interesting is that the one thing that has changed in the interim is that I am now pretty firmly on the proponent side of psi and the afterlife whereas the last time I took the tests I would have been on the fence - although if I am honest wanting to believe in the afterlife at least. ( I had not at the time looked into the subject too deeply or come across the evidence I have since -- I was aware of NDEs at the time but was also aware of vehement skeptical arguments -- without being aware at the time of how thin I would later find them.)
        From what I understand it's normal to shift around a bit in our personalities. People do change. It could be that some people grow up in a family that wants them to be one way, but once they leave home and start their own life their real personality comes out and they're different from that. Just an idea.

        So, yet another person on this forum with an extremely rare personality type. It continues to amaze me.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by paqart View Post
          I forgot to mention that Arouet and I have the same result: ENFP. I agree that it does describe me fairly well, just as the two for my wife and daughter fit them well also. If one assumes this is accurate, then I would rule out the personality type connection to psi on the basis of the differences between me and Arouet on that subject.

          AP
          No you don't Andy. Arouet is NT, you're NF. The psi-personality connection stands!

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Philemon View Post
            I believe Radin says that ESTJ is the "American" type. This is the exact opposite of my own type - INFP. Having known about the MBTI for many years, this is no shocker to me - as it has been pretty clear that I "wasn't made for this world" from quite an early age. I imagine that many of you other NF types have probably also felt this way.
            I've felt that way my whole life, although I suspect that has a lot to do with being an introvert in an extrovert world to begin with.

            Originally posted by Michael Larkin View Post
            Well, I've been rated with a T rather than an F, and my sense is that, although a psi proponent, I am a wee bit more sceptical than the average here.
            Michael, I'm not surprised you scored NT - I definitely see you as very logical and rational by your posts, a born philosopher - please take that as a compliment!

            Originally posted by Philemon View Post
            These sorts of folks (which are the large majority of people - in America, at least) don't sit around thinking deep thoughts or sailing on vast emotional expanses - they are DOING machines. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. (Am I feeling something? - I better go do something!).

            In one of my multicultural counseling courses I took many years ago, I remember a textbook talking about Doing, Being, and Becoming cultures. Our culture is a Doing culture.
            That's also my feeling about the world we live in, Philemon. And explains why I always feel at odds with most people. Just these past few days, being on holiday and looking at the people around me, I was wondering if my previous existence(s) were from another planet, whereas other people around me were more used to the Earth. I'm reading Kardec on reincarnation and inhabiting different worlds so that was influencing these reflections!

            BTW, do people who believe we are spirits who reincarnate think that some of these traits like introversion/extroversion are some we keep, that they're part of our inner core?

            Comment


            • #81
              The philosophers wheel and the Myers-Briggs.

              I just noticed this article about a possible correspondence between your Myers-Briggs results and your results on a test called the philosophers wheel where you can find out what philosophical position best describes your beliefs.
              Philosophy and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

              I haven't taken it yet, but the philosophers wheel test is here, though it's a paper and pencil test:
              questionnaire

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Ninshub View Post
                No you don't Andy. Arouet is NT, you're NF. The psi-personality connection stands!
                I took two tests and got two different results:

                First one was: INTP

                Second was: ENFP


                (both were the tests posts in this thread - never taken a myers-briggs test before)

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Ninshub View Post
                  No you don't Andy. Arouet is NT, you're NF. The psi-personality connection stands!
                  Looks like he got both.

                  AP

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Some of the versions of this test must be more accurate than others.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Ninshub View Post
                      Some of the versions of this test must be more accurate than others.
                      The M-B test is also not a sure thing. There are people who are not one thing or the other and some have been known to change over time. The test is not considered a reliable test of a single person's personality, but it is useful for social sciences where larger numbers are in effect.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Ninshub View Post
                        Some of the versions of this test must be more accurate than others.
                        The second test was more nuanced that the first test - so I would think if there is any legitimacy to these tests the second one would have to reflect me better than the first one.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Anyone else get different results in the two tests posted in this thread?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Ninshub View Post
                            Michael, I'm not surprised you scored NT - I definitely see you as very logical and rational by your posts, a born philosopher - please take that as a compliment!
                            I did, but then immediately thought: why would Ninshub think I wouldn't take it as a compliment? The apple you gave me contained a worm!

                            BTW, do people who believe we are spirits who reincarnate think that some of these traits like introversion/extroversion are some we keep, that they're part of our inner core?
                            I instinctively have problems with that, at least as permanent traits. It's possible we carry them along for a few lifetimes, indeed quite probable, but I see the object as being integration, which is why I like the Enneagram typology: it portrays the perspective of gradual evolution, of coming to a state where we can act appropriately in any given circumstance. There are times to be introspective and philosophical, times to be outgoing and unreflective, times to be poetic and times to be practical, times to be compassionate and times to be rather hard-headed, and so on.

                            I know I'm not integrated in that way; I'm definitely mostly introverted and reflective. Only in select circumstances do I act out of character. So I'm afraid that, like most people, there's a certain amount of (self-) conditioning in the system: a certain amount of automatism. And, the perfected human being, the isan-i-kamil of the Sufis, is completely free of automatism, seeing the true dynamics of situations as they actually are, uncoloured by psychological preferences that in the end are a kind of defense mechanism.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Michael Larkin View Post
                              So I'm afraid that, like most people, there's a certain amount of (self-) conditioning in the system: a certain amount of automatism. And, the perfected human being, the isan-i-kamil of the Sufis, is completely free of automatism, seeing the true dynamics of situations as they actually are, uncoloured by psychological preferences that in the end are a kind of defense mechanism.
                              Michael,

                              Can you point me in the direction of someone who writes about the isan-i-kamil? All this talk of the Enneagram and automatism has me thinking of Gurdjieff.

                              I was once a part of an Enneagram "group" that was mostly comprised of old ladies with too much money (I was invited in because I happened to work with one of these old ladies). We worked with a number of books and a number of authors - some of them more serious than others. Repeatedly, my type came up as 4. Some of the books talked about "wings" which only included one of the types to the left or right of your number. This would generally come up as a 4w5 for me. Later, I bumped into writings that claimed this thing was a complete misuse of the Enneagram and criticized it as being a means of just getting more wrapped up in the ego.

                              Who do you recommend to read on this?

                              Thanks!

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Philemon View Post
                                Michael,

                                Can you point me in the direction of someone who writes about the isan-i-kamil? All this talk of the Enneagram and automatism has me thinking of Gurdjieff.
                                The go-to-guy would be Idries Shah. There's an interesting piece here:

                                The Science of Sufism, Zakariyya Ishaq

                                that mentions insani-i-kamil, indeed gives a fairly accessible overview of Sufism from a fairly modern perspective; the writer thinks highly of Shah.

                                The view that Shah had about Gurdjieff was that he was for a time trained by Sufis, but left them too soon, so his system was defective. Sufism, Shah held, came in different presentations suitable for different times, place and people. Something like the famous Dervish whirling was devised for C13th. Turks, who were a rather phlegmatic people and needed stirring up. They don't work in modern times as they once did. Idries Shah had groups in England, and a guy called Bruce Main-Smith wrote about his experiences in one--see here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...fi/F9aMJ8eITuo (click on the first line of the post to expand)

                                I didn't use the term "automatism" with Gurdjieff in mind; it was just a suitable adjective that came to mind. I think Shah more frequently used the term "conditioning".

                                Who do you recommend to read on this?
                                Sufism, Idries Shah, the Institute for Cultural Research...? There's a whole list of things I could point you to, but was it just insan-i-kamil that interests you? If so, what I've already indicated should be okay. Please get back to me if you want more.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X